Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why does the Government continue to fight the requirement to obtain Warrants? [View all]JVS
(61,935 posts)13. Part of being secure in your papers is not having the government read all your correspondence just..
because current technology makes it easy for them to file a copy of all your communications stashed away for their use until they suspect that you've committed a crime.
If a wiretap needed a warrant, then the ease of wiretapping everyone automatically shouldn't somehow invalidate that requirement.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
88 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why does the Government continue to fight the requirement to obtain Warrants? [View all]
n2doc
Jul 2014
OP
Any evidence is subject to being gathered when building a case in court. Why would an interest
Thinkingabout
Jul 2014
#1
Yep, I can volunteer to help the police, in fact I have at different times, I just happen to be
Thinkingabout
Jul 2014
#3
Good for you. Me? Glad they're there, but I do have rights and I reserve them all.
Pholus
Jul 2014
#6
Naive? It is naive to expect my space to be protected and criminals to just walk away any time they
Thinkingabout
Jul 2014
#10
So you think we should live in a world where criminals has open season on victims? Hell no, the
Thinkingabout
Jul 2014
#9
Part of being secure in your papers is not having the government read all your correspondence just..
JVS
Jul 2014
#13
More than *eighty percent* of phone calls, the audio content, not just metadata, is being stored.
woo me with science
Jul 2014
#63
You know, if this is true then I can retrieve the voice information and use this to prove I said or
Thinkingabout
Jul 2014
#64
No, unless you are NSA, you can't retrieve it. That's part of the point.
woo me with science
Jul 2014
#75
I am thinking this is going to be normal in the future, we could subpoena the files when there is a
Thinkingabout
Jul 2014
#78
Now you know there is mass spying and surveillance. I am thinking if this guy is correct then
Thinkingabout
Jul 2014
#84
Yes there is lying on both sides of this, and until I can hear the conversations word for word then
Thinkingabout
Jul 2014
#87
You bring up an important point--"being secure in your papers" has evolved over two centuries of
msanthrope
Jul 2014
#47
You may not entirely understand 50 years ago people was getting convicted by having the same
Thinkingabout
Jul 2014
#52
Yea, thought you would think this was funny, unless you happened to be the one convicted with just
Thinkingabout
Jul 2014
#58
Well--he's technically correct that any evidence is subject to being gathered, but he's forgotten an
msanthrope
Jul 2014
#16
Woo, on this particular point you and are in agreement, yet you respond with invective.
msanthrope
Jul 2014
#28
Remember the admonition to watch a fictional teevee show as a rebuttal?
riderinthestorm
Jul 2014
#29
Woo, I am going to repeat to you the challenge I repeat to every poster who thinks I am not an
msanthrope
Jul 2014
#48
Woo, I appreciate you backing down from your claim that I am not an attorney. And in the
msanthrope
Jul 2014
#53
You are misrepresenting our conversation in your headlines to elicit a response.
woo me with science
Jul 2014
#56
I am reminded of those who quote the 2nd amendment in a similar fashion, and think that
msanthrope
Jul 2014
#38
You are correct that any evidence is subject to being gathered, but the rub is HOW.
msanthrope
Jul 2014
#11
So you are against law enforcement being required to abide by the law, iow, the US Constitution
sabrina 1
Jul 2014
#33
No--this issue was settled in the 70s. 3rd party has been around for 40 years. And that's the
msanthrope
Jul 2014
#18
Woo, as I noted to you above, you and I are in agreement on this point, yet you are being rude. Why?
msanthrope
Jul 2014
#30
Thank you Woo ... these misleading statements need to be corrected constantly here, sadly.
sabrina 1
Jul 2014
#34
Dealing with incessant diversion, distortion, and disinformation campaigns
woo me with science
Jul 2014
#45
Well, here, it's demanded they roll over even when they are in agreement!!! nt
msanthrope
Jul 2014
#39
Here is it asked that they defend the US Constitution as they took an oath to do. Quaint
sabrina 1
Jul 2014
#44
So the Constitution is no longer the 'rule of law' in America? When did THAT happen?
sabrina 1
Jul 2014
#41
So show me when the 4th Amendment to the Constitution was abolished. Thanks in advance.
sabrina 1
Jul 2014
#61
He's getting plenty of help from all sides sadly, these days. Used to be just one side, but as we
sabrina 1
Jul 2014
#42
Yes the 8 years with the BFEE and the 8 years with Obama taught/teaching us some valuable lessons.
Rex
Jul 2014
#43
If issuing warrants were a For-Profit business, we'd see warrants up the wazoo.
WinkyDink
Jul 2014
#49
I think the whole point of this thread is that warrants are being resisted,
woo me with science
Jul 2014
#73
Because when you basically have to suck up most EVERY CALL & EMAIL to do what you want
librechik
Jul 2014
#69
Yeah, better to just give up our rights. Constitution, schmonstitution.
woo me with science
Jul 2014
#79